U. Illinois editors suspended over Prophet cartoons

As such, most US newspapers chose not to publish the Prophet cartoons that have caused an uproar in the Islamic world. Those few that did encountered a few peaceful protests from Muslim organizations as well a bit of scolding from local and state politicians.

On one side, some groups believe they have the right to publish these cartoons as a right to freedom of press. They assert that only extremist Muslim factions are exaggerating the problem here. On the opposite side, people prefer to avoid antagonizing Muslims and to prevent any misunderstanding about being racist and inciting any violence. However, the issue has become quite hypocritical. If newspapers published the cartoon of a Muslim figure wearing a turban made of a bomb and called him Osama Bin Laden, would anyone protest it? What if the name listed was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

Yes, under the religion of Islam, paintings, pictures, or caricatures that depict the Prophet in any derogatory way are prohibited. In an interview on BBC, one of the leaders of the Muslim organizations in the UK stated that peaceful and proper images of the Prophet are allowed (forgot the link, but that's what he said). Also, you can check the Cranky Professor blog where pictures of Muhammad can be found at various libraries and collections.

From what has happened so far, it has been unfortunate the way the cartoons caused such a violent reaction in the Islamic world. However, the type of reaction has bordered along the level of insanity. Protests in Pakistan, Lebanon, and Libya for example, have all ended in violence. In some of the places, embassy buildings have been burned down. Some have called for the death and murder of those individuals that have published the cartoons. In London, a group of Muslim protestors held a rally in front of the BBC studios. Some of their placards called for violence, and even one protestor dressed up as a suicide bomber. Is this the right response to these images?

These types of violent protests have galvanized selected Western newspapers and groups to publish the images as a right to not be intimidated by threats. While they agree that the images were offensive, it should be debated in a civilized manner, not with violence. Why has it that when jokes and funny images are made out of the Pope and Jesus Christ, you do not get such a violent reaction?

Well, anyways, back to the topic... many newspapers in the US chose not to publish any of the Prophet cartoons. However, two high-ranking editors of the student newspaper at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were suspended for two weeks after they decided to run some of the controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Acton Gorton, the editor-in-chief, and Chuck Prochasks, the opinions editor, stood by their decision to print the cartoons.

After their suspension, the newspaper's editorial board apologized to the Muslim community and its readers for the editors' actions. Even though they did not necessarily disagree with the decision to run the cartoons, it disagreed with the process of how the cartoons made it into the paper.

Shaz Kaiseruddin, president of the Muslim Students' Association stated, "When hate speech is propagated under the guise of free speech, it's just indicative of the fact that 'Islamaphobia' is rampant in our nation." So does this mean we should suspend editors for publishing a bad caricature of Jesus? Or how about we tell people to go and murder the creators of Southpark for making the short film of Jesus and Santa fighting each other?

Or what if instead of the cartoon images, the newspaper decided to explain the images in words? Would this result in the same reaction? Would both editors still get suspended for asking students and people to use their imaginations based on them? Would that be considered hate speech? Not all the images of the Prophet were derogatory. What if the editors chose to publish the nicer images?

I do not believe for the fact that the editors were racist or prejudiced against Muslims. I think they were trying to invoke a discussion because we may not know what is the problem with these images and why the Muslim world is so angry about them. There was no attempt by the newspaper to display the images and just say "down with the Muslims." Do you really think the objective of the newspaper was to create violence? In an American university, do you think it would have resorted to violence? That's why I think the suspensions was unwarranted.

Well, I have to wonder how many more student newspapers will try to follow U. Illinois' way and get the same reaction.

St Louis Dispatch Newspaper

Student paper criticized for running cartoons (02/10/2006)

Two editors suspended over cartoons (02/16/2006)

Updated: 23-Feb-06

This came from the Harvard Crimson newspaper on 17-Feb-06

The editor of the Harvard Salient defended his newspaper's decision to republish the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, while other students at a Kirkland House forum said that the Salient's move was disrespectful toward Muslims.

The Salient's editor, Travis R. Kavulla '06-'07, said that journalistic integrity compelled the republication of the cartoons. The president of the Harvard Islamic Society, Khalid M. Yasin '07, said "The question here is not about free speech -- it's about respect. You can print what you want, but just because you have the right doesn't mean you have the obligation."

The Harvard Crimson - Interfaith Council Hosts Debate on Controversial Cartoons